American Politics

[SharkBait]

Horrible thing to support when we have nothing to show for the $500+billion we spend. Especially when you don't really benefit from it as much as you would if the money was used to support US's infrastructure instead. Imagine subways that can connect cities together, from one side of the country to another! I find this more exciting than giving money to contractors who would probably buy yachts.

I fly on airplanes and have never had to experience a plane hijacking or airport bombing. I drive across bridges and live in a town with lots of ships and other transportation, and Ive yet to see any terrorists do anything to these places. So I would say the amount of money were spending on military is clearly manifesting itself in numerous ways, for example through the high level of safety and security at our airports or the non existence of bombings at bridges and tunnels, airports, and naval bases in America. Through the investments made by Bush we are reaping numerous benefits even to this day.

 

[xi0]

I think its a good idea for people who are working or retired to have health insurance but I dont think they should be forced to have it. Were all forced to pay for medicare, which I dont have an issue with though since I think its a good idea to have a blanket protection to use after a lifetime of working. I think its a good idea to have Car insurance but I dont think they should be forced to have it if they dont want it.

But my point is that you understand why there's laws requiring people to pay for it, right? Of course, if we wanted to go full libertarian, we could say that those laws shouldn't exist, and that not wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be against the law either.....but is any of that smart and in the best interest of the population? Of course not. Requiring people to pay for health insurance is really no different IMO. When someone needs emergency care and doesn't have insurance and has to go to the hospital, unpaid costs don't just vanish into thin air because the person can't afford it. It becomes a burden on society.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 18, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 18, 2016 ---

I fly on airplanes and have never had to experience a plane hijacking or airport bombing. I drive across bridges and live in a town with lots of ships and other transportation, and Ive yet to see any terrorists do anything to these places. So I would say the amount of money were spending on military is clearly manifesting itself in numerous ways, for example through the high level of safety and security at our airports or the non existence of bombings at bridges and tunnels, airports, and naval bases in America. Through the investments made by Bush we are reaping numerous benefits even to this day.

You do realize that Obama has been in office for 8 years now and none of that has changed, right? So then why do people in your party continue to maintain this lie about him being anti-military?

 

[SharkBait]

But my point is that you understand why there's laws requiring people to pay for it, right? Of course, if we wanted to go full libertarian, we could say that those laws shouldn't exist, and that not wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be against the law either.....but is any of that smart and in the best interest of the population? Of course not. Requiring people to pay for health insurance is really no different IMO. When someone needs emergency care and doesn't have insurance and has to go to the hospital, unpaid costs don't just vanish into thin air because the person can't afford it. It becomes a burden on society.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 18, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 18, 2016 ---

You do realize that Obama has been in office for 8 years now and none of that has changed, right? So then why do people in your party continue to maintain this lie about him being anti-military?

The hospital could determine to pay for the care or not, or better yet the industry could modulate its own standard for altering the healthcare costs moderating it for consumers, thereby circumventing the need to increase the cost of healthcare.

People making bad lifestyle choices is what causes the burden on society, diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, obesity, ignoring vaccinations, imagine, if people made better lifestyle choices, then we would have less people needing hospitalizations, and therefore, less health costs. Its not the health insurance fault health is high, but people making bad choices.

It is good for people to wear a seatbelt, but it is also better for people to make smart driving choices, obey moving traffic laws, and dont text and drive, all, you know, are based on the person making good lifestyle choices.

Under the old system, how does your coworker not paying for health insurance affect you or me, it didnt. But now, it does.

-

Obama is anti-military Ive read many unbiased accounts of his presidency and he has removed on foot soldiers from over seas, relied too much on smart warfare that didnt produce results, and is slow to respond to threats that we lose strongholds over seas. His terrible decisions are way he's now had to go against his ideas of closing a prison over seas as well as keep pushing off his plans to pull people back from overseas and bring them to the homeland. He is terrible. And then lets not mention all these threats from our lands.

 

[M3J]

How is paying a fine worse than jailtime.........?


You're going overboard here. I'm merely saying that the budget shouldn't continue to be increased when we aren't even at war. I'm not for defunding the military, only that funding it shouldn't come at the cost of denying social welfare and benefits to citizens.

Wouldn't inability to pay fines mean jail time anyway? And from what I read in the news, you apparently get free access to healthcare and stuff in jail.

I know I am, but I'm pissed that we spend so much money on warfare and defense but have issues taking away some money to use for welfare and betterment for citizens. I don't want to defund the military either, but I do think $500bil is ridiculous. I'd rather we reduce that amount significantly and force them to actually make sure that the money they get is used well.

I fly on airplanes and have never had to experience a plane hijacking or airport bombing. I drive across bridges and live in a town with lots of ships and other transportation, and Ive yet to see any terrorists do anything to these places. So I would say the amount of money were spending on military is clearly manifesting itself in numerous ways, for example through the high level of safety and security at our airports or the non existence of bombings at bridges and tunnels, airports, and naval bases in America. Through the investments made by Bush we are reaping numerous benefits even to this day.

I highly doubt it, and I'm willing to bet it's more due to safety regulations and employees who don't see money from defense and warfare than anything else. If you halt all the funding for defense and warfare, the results would still be the same. If you spend more in defense and warfare but fire the employees or replace them with incompetent people and/or get rid of safety regulations, you're far more likely to get bombed, hijacked, or be affected by terrorists. People have attempted to bomb Times Square/NYC at least once, but they were caught thanks to vigilant citizens and/or competent authority like the NYPD.

but lol at someone actually saying something good about Bush's investments when he's made things worse.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 18, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 18, 2016 ---

But my point is that you understand why there's laws requiring people to pay for it, right? Of course, if we wanted to go full libertarian, we could say that those laws shouldn't exist, and that not wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be against the law either.....but is any of that smart and in the best interest of the population? Of course not. Requiring people to pay for health insurance is really no different IMO. When someone needs emergency care and doesn't have insurance and has to go to the hospital, unpaid costs don't just vanish into thin air because the person can't afford it. It becomes a burden on society.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 18, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 18, 2016 ---

You do realize that Obama has been in office for 8 years now and none of that has changed, right? So then why do people in your party continue to maintain this lie about him being anti-military?

Fear mongering.

 

[SharkBait]

Tonight Hilary Clinton sounds like she will be Obama yr 3 [also NBC chooses dumb questions, why does anyone care about how they are engaging young voters? or if sanders is a democratic socialist?!] No one is going to vote on how well a candidate engages young voters. Also choosing a question from a youtube personality instead of a normal hardworking american? awful.

 

[kkck]

I don't know if I'd characterize him as that, but I think he's probably the least accomplished among the career politicians in the field (not counting Ted Cruz).

The "problem" with the insurance and hospital industries are kind of linked, from what I can tell. But the insurance industry is probably much larger.

Well, there is the issue of the insane markups hospitals have, specially on ridiculous things. That is an issue that is related to insurance companies although solving it would as far as I can tell at least involve solely the hospitals as they are the ones passing the costs to insurance companies and thus increasing the cost of insurance for everyone. As far as I can tell this is the core of the issue....

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 18, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 18, 2016 ---

Wait, they use gettin rid of what Obama has done as part of fear mongering? I find that hard to believe considering how unpopular Obama is with even the democrats. I remember reading that Hillary distanced herself from Obama for her campaign. I thought democrats would be all "we're democrats, but we won't make mistakes like Obama did or take his views in most things!"

Is he that unpopular? I know republicans absolutely despise him (at least the politicians anyways) but I never got the impression that he was extremely unpopular or anything. At least looking at approval ratings it doesn't seem like he is doing too badly considering he is near the end of his second term. As far as democrats go, some headlines do say they have distanced themselves from obama but in context they are simply trying to sell the idea that they are more than a continuation. Their general rhetoric in turn seems to be more along the lines of continuing what is being done and improving other things.

 

[xi0]

Candidates that are in the same party as the president always try to at least differentiate themselves in an effort to draw interest from independents. Approval rating only factors into it if the president is truly unpopular.

 

[M3J]

Is he that unpopular? I know republicans absolutely despise him (at least the politicians anyways) but I never got the impression that he was extremely unpopular or anything. At least looking at approval ratings it doesn't seem like he is doing too badly considering he is near the end of his second term. As far as democrats go, some headlines do say they have distanced themselves from obama but in context they are simply trying to sell the idea that they are more than a continuation. Their general rhetoric in turn seems to be more along the lines of continuing what is being done and improving other things.

If I recall, a lot of democrats have criticized Obama and opposed him in a lot of things. One of the reasons why Clinton is distancing herself from Obama is because he's very unpopular with the citizens, I'm not sure if it's more than that. Based on what I have seen, Obama has a very low approval rating. I'm actually not sure just how many Americans are still pro-Obama, but I think they're quite rare. Interestingly, based off what I have read from non-Americans and interacted with, Obama is praised, and no one understands why Americans hate him or oppose him on almost everything when he's come up with good ideas that benefit the citizens.


So many Americans claim Obama is the reason why we don't get respect from other countries, but from what I've seen it's the citizens that don't have the respect. At least bar @Sky, almost no one supports Trump and almost everyone is wondering why Trump has some support. Personally, I'm convinced the republicans and Hillary will do irreparable damage to the country, and from what I've heard about Bernie after this debate, he'll do bad in foreign affairs. Sad that we can't work together to help make the country better.

 

[kkck]

If I recall, a lot of democrats have criticized Obama and opposed him in a lot of things. One of the reasons why Clinton is distancing herself from Obama is because he's very unpopular with the citizens, I'm not sure if it's more than that. Based on what I have seen, Obama has a very low approval rating. I'm actually not sure just how many Americans are still pro-Obama, but I think they're quite rare. Interestingly, based off what I have read from non-Americans and interacted with, Obama is praised, and no one understands why Americans hate him or oppose him on almost everything when he's come up with good ideas that benefit the citizens.


So many Americans claim Obama is the reason why we don't get respect from other countries, but from what I've seen it's the citizens that don't have the respect. At least bar @Sky, almost no one supports Trump and almost everyone is wondering why Trump has some support. Personally, I'm convinced the republicans and Hillary will do irreparable damage to the country, and from what I've heard about Bernie after this debate, he'll do bad in foreign affairs. Sad that we can't work together to help make the country better.

At least going online suggests obama acceptance is at around 47% which is not too bad considering everything. Of course, that can vary with time... I do think obama will ultimately be remembered positively.

As far as obama being the reason the US does not get respect from other countries... what does that even mean? Obama has gotten the US a significant amount of good will and even actual respect. What dragged US respect and good name through the ground was good old gearge bush. The guy got most of the free world to absolutely hate the US (except israel I think, they loved him). Obama effectively improved the image and good name of the US internationally (funny enough, except with israel). Well, that or I don't know what people mean by respect for the US in this context.

 

[Franckie]

Is he that unpopular? I know republicans absolutely despise him (at least the politicians anyways) but I never got the impression that he was extremely unpopular or anything. At least looking at approval ratings it doesn't seem like he is doing too badly considering he is near the end of his second term. As far as democrats go, some headlines do say they have distanced themselves from obama but in context they are simply trying to sell the idea that they are more than a continuation. Their general rhetoric in turn seems to be more along the lines of continuing what is being done and improving other things.

Obama is actually pretty popular among liberals, moderates, and even conservatives. The last tidbit sounds weird, but it's true. According to 2008 exit polls, Obama won 20% of the conservative vote. Even in 2012, after 4 years of nonstop Republican attacks, he still won 17% of the conservative vote, with 11% of Tea Partiers saying they cast their ballots for Obama.

The only people who can't stand him are Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. In other words, the far-right in the United States. They're basically nutjobs and racists (e.g. birthers), but because they scream louder than anyone else they attract the most attention.

As far as obama being the reason the US does not get respect from other countries... what does that even mean? Obama has gotten the US a significant amount of good will and even actual respect. What dragged US respect and good name through the ground was good old gearge bush. The guy got most of the free world to absolutely hate the US (except israel I think, they loved him). Obama effectively improved the image and good name of the US internationally (funny enough, except with israel). Well, that or I don't know what people mean by respect for the US in this context.

Spoiler: Bolded

One of the things you'll learn soon enough if you continue watching US politics is there is no such thing as a "center-left party" in the US. Over the last 40+ years, Democrats have moved to the right while Republicans have moved into a mental hospital. You have one party that is ideally suited for hedgefund managers, banks, credit card companies, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical lobby; we call these center-right politicians the Democrats. They in turn sit across the table composed of religious lunatics and Civil war reenactors; we call these far-right politicians Republicans.

Understanding this will help you realize why Republicans make zero sense. Nowadays they are a radical insurgency--ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of factors, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of their political opposition.

 

[kkck]

Obama is actually pretty popular among liberals, moderates, and even conservatives. The last tidbit sounds weird, but it's true. According to 2008 exit polls, Obama won 20% of the conservative vote. Even in 2012, after 4 years of nonstop Republican attacks, he still won 17% of the conservative vote, with 11% of Tea Partiers saying they cast their ballots for Obama.

The only people who can't stand him are Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. In other words, the far-right in the United States. They're basically nutjobs and racists (e.g. birthers), but because they scream louder than anyone else they attract the most attention.

Spoiler: Bolded

One of the things you'll learn soon enough if you continue watching US politics is there is no such thing as a "center-left party" in the US. Over the last 40+ years, Democrats have moved to the right while Republicans have moved into a mental hospital. You have one party that is ideally suited for hedgefund managers, banks, credit card companies, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical lobby; we call these center-right politicians the Democrats. They in turn sit across the table composed of religious lunatics and Civil war reenactors; we call these far-right politicians Republicans.

Understanding this will help you realize why Republicans make zero sense. Nowadays they are a radical insurgency--ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of factors, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of their political opposition.

Well, his approval ratings would suggest that obama has approval on a wide range of citizens. I guess actual hatred of him ultimately does fall within within fringes of political ideologies...

Well, but what does that have to do with my question? I am aware that democrats aren't center left and if anything almost literally everywhere else in the world they would be a right wing party. My question however was why exactly would anyone, regardless of their level of insanity, think Obama has done something to harm the image of the US worldwide or that somehow bush gave the US a good image in the international community...

 

[xi0]

Well, but what does that have to do with my question? I am aware that democrats aren't center left and if anything almost literally everywhere else in the world they would be a right wing party. My question however was why exactly would anyone, regardless of their level of insanity, think Obama has done something to harm the image of the US worldwide or that somehow bush gave the US a good image in the international community...

Due to the two-party system, one party might become more centrist during anti-liberal times in order to attract more voters, and another might become more extreme in order to do the same thing. I think his point is it's a push and a pull in order to keep the parties afloat. But I don't think that the current environment in the Republican party is tenable. We saw the fissure in the party during the emergence of the Tea Party. I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to go away.

 

[SharkBait]

Well, his approval ratings would suggest that oba.ma has approval on a wide range of citizens. I guess actual hatred of him ultimately does fall within within fringes of political ideologies...

Well, but what does that have to do with my question? I am aware that democrats aren't center left and if anything almost literally everywhere else in the world they would be a right wing party. My question however was why exactly would anyone, regardless of their level of insanity, think Obama has done something to harm the image of the US worldwide

He has harmed the image of the country, no one fears our military because they think its weak, other countries criticize US for not providing aid or home to fleeting refugees, he leaves wars unfinished causing embarrassing failures to be left around the world (afghanistan, Iraq), police violence and violent acts have increased under his reign that other country leaders criticize him, his foreign policy is a failure and laughable easily criticized by other country leaders.

 

[kkck]

He has harmed the image of the country, no one fears our military because they think its weak, other countries criticize US for not providing aid or home to fleeting refugees, he leaves wars unfinished causing embarrassing failures to be left around the world (afghanistan, Iraq), police violence and violent acts have increased under his reign that other country leaders criticize him, his foreign policy is a failure and laughable easily criticized by other country leaders.

Are you serious? First of all, no one actually thinks US military is weak. At worst people think their money is poorly spent. But other than that everyone is perfectly aware that the US can bomb them without putting a single of their soldiers at risk via drones controlled from a different continent. If the US military is weak, then literally every other military in the world is virtually non existent. When it comes to the US military the issue is never how powerful it is. There absolutely isn't anything in the world that has even a fraction of its power. The issue tends to be it's policies and to an extent how liberally it is used.

So... the issue is someone being critical of the US? I gotta ask, are you high? Of course there is always going to be critical. What do you think things are supposed to be like? Are other world leaders supposed to be too scared of the military to be critical? Do you even remember what people thought of george bush for that matter? This reminded me of the movie Jay and silent bob strike back when the two traveled all over the US beating up people who wrote negative comments about them (I did also kinda watch the movie recently).

In the article with china, china is criticizing the iraq war. That is specifically a george bush deal. As far as the venezuela bit, what exactly is your point? Of course venezuelan assholes are going to take issue with obama freezing their assets. On a personal level I thought this was awesome when it happened. Seriously though, did you expect the US to freeze some 7 billion dollars in money and them to be thankful? The US being able to arbitrarily do that to a foreign government is a pretty obvious display of power.

As for the putin bit, he is also talking about iraq and afganistan... Again, bush deals. Of course, he is then critical of obama but do you think he wouldn't be critical of other stuff? You literally don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Do you even read the links you post?

I mean, george bush being literally stupid/retarded was a freaking meme.... Of course, george bush is probably not actually stupid (or evil) but that is still a pretty good reflection of how the world saw the US at the time. Obama, if anything, has improved the US image worldwide.

 

[SharkBait]

I do read the articles, these are all made under the time Obama has been president and about Obama. You can't just blame everything on Bush when Obama has been in office for seven years now to do things differently, which he hasnt thusly leaving him open to criticism for either continuing to do things he said he wouldnt or making rash decisions that don't make sense. People have to move beyond Bush or else they will be stuck in an early 2000's frame of mind. If Obama wanted to be above criticism then he would have made moves faster.

And why get angry at me, these folks are making criticisms of Obama, which you seemed to have doubted that people could logically criticize him for.

 

[kkck]

I do read the articles, these are all made under the time Obama has been president and about Obama. You can't just blame everything on Bush when Obama has been in office for seven years now to do things differently, which he hasnt thusly leaving him open to criticism for either continuing to do things he said he wouldnt or making rash decisions that don't make sense. People have to move beyond Bush or else they will be stuck in an early 2000's frame of mind. If Obama wanted to be above criticism then he would have made moves faster.

And why get angry at me, these folks are making criticisms of Obama, which you seemed to have doubted that people could logically criticize him for.

I am not angry at you. But the links you posted had china and russia being critical of things specifically pertaining to george bush (say, the 2003 iraq incursion). Sure, the article mentions china critized obama. But only because obama mocked them to begin with. Sure, SAs took issues with the sanctions... But those are countries with specific anti US rhetoric that would stand against the US regardless of circumstances and specially when the US froze billions in assets.

Also worth noting, there isn't such a thing as being above criticism. What does that even mean?

I am not saying obama can't be criticized, that would be absurd. However you are linking to guys that would pretty much be critical of obama and the US regardless of circumstances. I mean, you have china, rusia, venezuela, argentina, bolivia... The US has even imposed crippling economic sanctions on rusia on top of all the trouble they are having due to low oil prices.

 

[SharkBait]

I am not angry at you. But the links you posted had china and russia being critical of things specifically pertaining to george bush (say, the 2003 iraq incursion). Sure, the article mentions china critized obama. But only because obama mocked them to begin with. Sure, SAs took issues with the sanctions... But those are countries with specific anti US rhetoric that would stand against the US regardless of circumstances and specially when the US froze billions in assets.

Also worth noting, there isn't such a thing as being above criticism. What does that even mean?

I am not saying obama can't be criticized, that would be absurd. However you are linking to guys that would pretty much be critical of obama and the US regardless of circumstances. I mean, you have china, rusia, venezuela, argentina, bolivia... The US has even imposed crippling economic sanctions on rusia on top of all the trouble they are having due to low oil prices.

Its the presidents job to use their foreign policy expertise to negotiate with these countries to improve relations, he did it with Cuba, so I can't see why he couldnt do it with Russia, China, Venuzuela, Argentina, Bolivia. At least Hilary Clinton tries with Russia.

--

Also did the British people actually debate Trump being banned from their country today? That seems rude as they would, if he were elected, have to still deal with him on a foreign policy standpoint. The US has a long history with Britain, so...it seems impossible to actually ban him.

 

[kkck]

Its the presidents job to use their foreign policy expertise to negotiate with these countries to improve relations, he did it with Cuba, so I can't see why he couldnt do it with Russia, China, Venuzuela, Argentina, Bolivia. At least Hilary Clinton tries with Russia.

--

Also did the British people actually debate Trump being banned from their country today? That seems rude as they would, if he were elected, have to still deal with him on a foreign policy standpoint. The US has a long history with Britain, so...it seems impossible to actually ban him.

Well, yes, it is his job to do that. But the guy is not and cannot be magic. And I thought the US was supposed to be strong and not take crap from anyone. Now they have to expertly negotiate so that they are not critical? If you looked at the actual circumstances of any of those countries you'd realize you are not making any sense here.... Russia are the guys on whom the US imposed sanctions... And rusia is the country with an entire department in the kremlin specifically dedicated to publish anti US propaganda. Venezuela is a socialist cesspool which has it's congress at war with the president. Argentina just got out of it's socialist regime which was notorious for it's anti US rhetoric along with economic policy which would seem to have been suicidal. I think you'd get a better sense of how popular obama is if you looked at europe for instance.

They did. But they did not vote to ban him. They did however spend 3 solid hours calling him every British equivalent to ignorant asshole possible, the videos online are very fun to watch.

 

[SharkBait]

Well, yes, it is his job to do that. But the guy is not and cannot be magic. And I thought the US was supposed to be strong and not take crap from anyone. Now they have to expertly negotiate so that they are not critical? If you looked at the actual circumstances of any of those countries you'd realize you are not making any sense here.... Russia are the guys on whom the US imposed sanctions... And rusia is the country with an entire department in the kremlin specifically dedicated to publish anti US propaganda. Venezuela is a socialist cesspool which has it's congress at war with the president. Argentina just got out of it's socialist regime which was notorious for it's anti US rhetoric along with economic policy which would seem to have been suicidal. I think you'd get a better sense of how popular obama is if you looked at europe for instance.

They did. But they did not vote to ban him. They did however spend 3 solid hours calling him every British equivalent to ignorant asshole possible, the videos online are very fun to watch.

Thats harsh for Trump and then on evening news here they are laughing cause he said "Two Corinthians" instead of "Second Corinthians" when he spoke at Liberty University (an major evangelical christian university in America).

-

Well Im not an expert on Europe relations which is why I come here to see how our country is viewed in Europe.

 

[xi0]

Its the presidents job to use their foreign policy expertise to negotiate with these countries to improve relations

So then why are members of your party so vehemently against doing that with Iran, as the Obama administration has been doing? You can't have it both ways man...